Five sessions of Hyperbaric Oxygen for critically ill patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS: a randomised, open label, phase II trial.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Respiratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4785362
Anders Kjellberg, Johan Douglas, Michael T. Pawlik, Adrian Hassler, S. Al-Ezerjawi, Emil Boström, L. Abdel-Halim, Lovisa Liwenborg, Anna-Dora Jonasdottir-Njåstad, Jan Kowalski, S. Catrina, K. Rodriguez-Wallberg, Peter Lindholm
{"title":"Five sessions of Hyperbaric Oxygen for critically ill patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS: a randomised, open label, phase II trial.","authors":"Anders Kjellberg, Johan Douglas, Michael T. Pawlik, Adrian Hassler, S. Al-Ezerjawi, Emil Boström, L. Abdel-Halim, Lovisa Liwenborg, Anna-Dora Jonasdottir-Njåstad, Jan Kowalski, S. Catrina, K. Rodriguez-Wallberg, Peter Lindholm","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4785362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nFew treatment options exist for patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Data on the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) for this condition is limited.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo evaluate benefits and harms of HBOT in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS.\n\n\nMETHODS\nIn this open-label trial conducted at three hospitals in Sweden and Germany, patients with moderate to severe ARDS and at least two risk factors for unfavourable outcome, were randomly assigned (1:1) to medical oxygen 100%, 2·4 Atmospheres absolute (ATA), 80 minutes (HBOT) adjuvant to best practice or to best practice alone (Control). Randomisation was stratified by sex and site. The primary endpoint was ICU admission by Day 30.\n\n\nRESULTS\nBetween June 4, 2020, and Dec 1, 2021, 34 subjects were randomised to HBOT (N=18) or Control (N=16). The trial was prematurely terminated for futility. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU admission, 5 (50%) in Control vs 13 (72%) in HBOT. OR 2·54 [95% CI 0·62-10·39], p=0·19.\n\n\nHARMS\n102 adverse events (AEs) were recorded. 16 (94%) subjects in the HBOT group and 14 (93%) in the control group had at least one AE. Three serious adverse events (SAEs), were at least, possibly related to HBOT. All deaths were unlikely related to HBOT.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nHBOT did not reduce ICU admission or mortality in patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. The trial cannot conclude definitive benefits or harms. Treating COVID-19-induced ARDS with HBOT is feasible with a favourable harms profile.\n\n\nFUNDING\nSwedish Research Council, grant number KBF 2019-00446.","PeriodicalId":21057,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4785362","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Few treatment options exist for patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Data on the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) for this condition is limited. OBJECTIVE To evaluate benefits and harms of HBOT in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS. METHODS In this open-label trial conducted at three hospitals in Sweden and Germany, patients with moderate to severe ARDS and at least two risk factors for unfavourable outcome, were randomly assigned (1:1) to medical oxygen 100%, 2·4 Atmospheres absolute (ATA), 80 minutes (HBOT) adjuvant to best practice or to best practice alone (Control). Randomisation was stratified by sex and site. The primary endpoint was ICU admission by Day 30. RESULTS Between June 4, 2020, and Dec 1, 2021, 34 subjects were randomised to HBOT (N=18) or Control (N=16). The trial was prematurely terminated for futility. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU admission, 5 (50%) in Control vs 13 (72%) in HBOT. OR 2·54 [95% CI 0·62-10·39], p=0·19. HARMS 102 adverse events (AEs) were recorded. 16 (94%) subjects in the HBOT group and 14 (93%) in the control group had at least one AE. Three serious adverse events (SAEs), were at least, possibly related to HBOT. All deaths were unlikely related to HBOT. CONCLUSIONS HBOT did not reduce ICU admission or mortality in patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. The trial cannot conclude definitive benefits or harms. Treating COVID-19-induced ARDS with HBOT is feasible with a favourable harms profile. FUNDING Swedish Research Council, grant number KBF 2019-00446.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对 COVID-19 诱导的 ARDS 重症患者进行五次高压氧治疗:随机、开放标签 II 期试验。
背景COVID-19诱发的急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的治疗选择很少。有关高压氧治疗(HBOT)对这种疾病的益处和危害的数据非常有限。目的评估高压氧治疗对 COVID-19 诱导的 ARDS 患者的益处和危害。方法在瑞典和德国的三家医院进行的这项开放标签试验中,中度至重度 ARDS 患者且至少有两个不利预后的风险因素,被随机分配(1:1)至医用氧气 100%、2-4 个绝对大气压 (ATA)、80 分钟(HBOT)辅助最佳治疗或单独最佳治疗(对照组)。随机分组按性别和地点进行。结果2020年6月4日至2021年12月1日期间,34名受试者被随机分配到HBOT(18人)或对照组(16人)。试验因无效而提前终止。在入住重症监护室方面,对照组为 5 例(50%),而 HBOT 为 13 例(72%),两者之间的差异无统计学意义。记录的不良事件(AEs)为 HARMS102。HBOT组16名受试者(94%)和对照组14名受试者(93%)至少出现过一次AE。三起严重不良事件(SAE)至少可能与 HBOT 有关。结论HBOT并未减少COVID-19诱发的ARDS患者入住ICU的次数或死亡率。该试验无法得出明确的利弊结论。用HBOT治疗COVID-19诱发的ARDS是可行的,其危害也是有利的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory medicine
Respiratory medicine 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
199
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Respiratory Medicine is an internationally-renowned journal devoted to the rapid publication of clinically-relevant respiratory medicine research. It combines cutting-edge original research with state-of-the-art reviews dealing with all aspects of respiratory diseases and therapeutic interventions. Topics include adult and paediatric medicine, epidemiology, immunology and cell biology, physiology, occupational disorders, and the role of allergens and pollutants. Respiratory Medicine is increasingly the journal of choice for publication of phased trial work, commenting on effectiveness, dosage and methods of action.
期刊最新文献
Understanding the acceptability of the changing model of care in cystic fibrosis Efficacy of balloon pulmonary angioplasty in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease and exercise pulmonary hypertension Epistaxis in COVID positive ICU patients, implications, and future interventions Prognostic Role of Pleural Fluid SUVpeak Value obtained from 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with Malignant Pleural Effusion. β-Blockers and Asthma: Surprising findings from the FAERS database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1